Access Timing as Scaffolding: A Reinforcement Learning Approach to GenAI in Education
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In recent years, generative AI (GenAI) in educational settings has become ubiquitous in university students' daily lives, despite its potential to induce over-reliance, metacognitive disengagement, and diminished learning when used unrestrictedly. While most prior research has focused on how to pedagogically scaffold its usage, the question of when to allow off-the-shelf GenAI remains understudied and lacks pedagogically grounded empirical investigation. We treat access timing itself as a form of implicit scaffolding and operationalize it through a reinforcement learning (RL) agent that decides when students should access GenAI, with a reward function grounded in metacognitive theory, cognitive load theory, and productive failure. In a mixed-methods controlled lab study with N=105 higher education students, we compared the agent's effect on learning gains and metacognitive engagement to unrestricted and fully restricted use. Results show that strategically timed GenAI access under the reinforcement learning condition improved objective post-test performance and metacognitive accuracy compared with unrestricted access, without requiring explicit metacognitive prompts or structured scaffolding. Exploratory comparisons with the fully restricted condition further suggest that timed access may reduce task errors and time on task relative to complete withholding. Overall, timing of GenAI access therefore is a tractable, theoretically grounded, and scalable pedagogical strategy that improves over completely unrestricted and withheld access, compatible with off-the-shelf tools and potentially low adoption barrier. This opens up a new research area that explores how access timing can be facilitated by educators and implemented in human-AI learning system design.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 97 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 May 2026.
Builds on
16 of 97 references.
References · 16
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
- 2013Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 3,211
- 2016Asynchronous Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 2,218
- 2023The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AIcited by 85
- 2024Beware of Metacognitive Laziness: Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Learning Motivation, Processes, and Performancecited by 58
- 2023A Comprehensive AI Policy Education Framework for University Teaching and Learningcited by 34
- 2024Towards the Pedagogical Steering of Large Language Models for Tutoring: A Case Study with Modeling Productive Failurecited by 20
- 2024Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learningcited by 17
- 2025Protecting Human Cognition in the Age of AIcited by 12
- 2023Reinforcement Learning Tutor Better Supported Lower Performers in a Math Taskcited by 11
- 2023Leveraging Deep Reinforcement Learning for Metacognitive Interventions across Intelligent Tutoring Systemscited by 10
- 2024Performance and Metacognition Disconnect when Reasoning in Human-AI Interactioncited by 10
4 more
- 2025Enhancing Critical Thinking in Generative AI Search with Metacognitive Promptscited by 8
- 2024Enhancing Programming Education with ChatGPT: A Case Study on Student Perceptions and Interactions in a Python Coursecited by 6
- 2025Plan More, Debug Less: Applying Metacognitive Theory to AI-Assisted Programming Educationcited by 5
- 2026Investigating the Effects of LLM Use on Critical Thinking Under Time Constraints: Access Timing and Time Availabilitycited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.